dventimi

38 ms·

451.
by dventimi 3y ago
Yes. It sounds like the executive editor of The Times was completely wrong but refused to accept it.
452.
by dventimi 3y ago
Perhaps concrete in construction and demolition waste could be used. https://www.bigrentz.com/blog/construction-waste-statistics
453.
by dventimi 3y ago
What do you mean "we"? Push for alternative modes of transportation to the complete exclusion of autonomous vehicles if you like. Personally, I like autonomous vehicle and will continue to advocate for them.
454.
by dventimi 3y ago
Hogwash. Egoism isn't what's in short supply. EMPATHY is what's in short supply.
455.
by dventimi 3y ago
> Defining a language to run scripts in parallel with some constraints is actually quite easy if you just pass the script to an existing interpreter and let the language mainly deal with the constraints around order and parallelism (and
456.
by dventimi 3y ago
> Ethics is far from useless. It has important connections to open issues in society and e.g. birthed the effective altruism movement. That's not a great track record. https://www.newyorker.com/news/annals-of-in
457.
by dventimi 3y ago
Whereas in philosophy, ALL the crackpots are overfunded.
458.
by dventimi 3y ago
Already this claim fails to withstand scrutiny. I already treated John Lock elsewhere in this thread, so for variety let's consider another crucial figure from the Age of Enlightenment: Francis Bacon. Was Bacon a philosopher? Maybe
459.
by dventimi 3y ago
> I mean work done on it was steady evolution of knowledge started as philosophy. Newton himself called it philosophy. I addressed this already when I wrote above, "Newton may have called himself a philosopher but we're not obl
460.
by dventimi 3y ago
> That's survivor's bias. You can be ignorant about anything until it becomes a problem. I choose to believe that if you could name a branch of physics that can't be done without philosophy, you would have named it. Theref
461.
by dventimi 3y ago
I think you're forgetting how we got here. fastaguy88 wrote > I am not particularly knowledgeable about philosophy as a modern discipline, but taking philosophy courses as an undergraduate taught me a lot, particularly about the lim
462.
by dventimi 3y ago
> I mean Aristotle's approach to physics is gold standard of modern science. I don't consider Aristotle's approach to physics to be the gold standard of modern science, but I'm willing to entertain the notion if you s
463.
by dventimi 3y ago
Consider John Locke. He didn't create the idea of "human rights" any more than any one individual can be solely credited with any accomplishment in history, but I think it's fair to say he contributed a lot to the idea
464.
by dventimi 3y ago
How did you establish that was a philosophical notion?
465.
by dventimi 3y ago
> The argument I advanced was that physics is an offshoot, a product, of philosophy. You haven't negated that claim in any form that I recognise. I haven't tried to since I don't find the question that argument addresses
466.
by dventimi 3y ago
Do you think non aircraft engineers who fly in airplanes would tend to have their confidence increased, or decreased, if they discovered their airline had hired mechanics without checking their qualifications?
467.
by dventimi 3y ago
I don't know you personally, so I'm not interested in what you personally find useful about what you know. If I'm interested in anything you know, it's only in those things that are recognized to be useful to other peopl
468.
by dventimi 3y ago
You forgot about Galileo, whose laws of motion superseded Aristotle's and did more to inform Newton. You also forgot about Copernicus and Kepler. Meanwhile, Newton formulated laws of motion that are still used today, a law of gravitati
469.
by dventimi 3y ago
Name one branch of physics that can't do without philosophy, in the following sense: at a typical American university with a graduate physics program that prepares its doctoral students for a successful professional career in that bran
470.
by dventimi 3y ago
Rubbish. It isn't remotely true that quantum mechanics is based on Aristotle, but even if it were true it wouldn't address the fact his ostensible book "Physics" is utterly useless for practicing modern physics.
471.
by dventimi 3y ago
No. Among other things I'm claiming Newton, for instance, would typically be classified by modern standards not as a philosopher but as a physicist. I further claim that regardless of their historical provenance, modern physics is very
472.
by dventimi 3y ago
> which in no way negates the claim [about physics and philosophy] Whether that claim is true or not depends on the meanings people assign to the terms "physics" and "philosophy." Newton may have called himself a phil
473.
by dventimi 3y ago
Yet today the branch of physics that bears his name and still embodies his ideas and methods is typically taught within the physics department but not the philosophy department.
474.
by dventimi 3y ago
That "book" whoever wrote it, is utterly useless for practicing modern physics.
475.
by dventimi 3y ago
That's Carnegie Mellon University, not Cornell.
476.
by dventimi 3y ago
The trouble is, we have to take your word for it that philosophy taught you a lot that the rest of us find useful, as there's little Independent verification. At least with math, or physics, or engineering, there are some fairly standa
477.
by dventimi 3y ago
Every philosopher mentioned in the original article is Western, so I propose that we do limit ourselves Western philosophy, but if you want to argue in favor of a different proposal then I'd love to hear your reasoning. Also, any philo
478.
by dventimi 3y ago
It's not a philosophical notion.
479.
by dventimi 3y ago
Absolutely not
480.
by dventimi 3y ago
Indian astronomers and mathematicians have a stronger claim to that invention than anyone recognizable as a classical European philosopher. I rate this claim as "false."

More ›